Negative urgency partially accounts for the relationship between major depressive disorder and marijuana problems

Abstract

BackgroundTo goal of this study was to better understand mechanisms underlying associations between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and marijuana use and problems. Specifically, it was hypothesized that negative urgency (NU), the tendency to act rashly while experiencing negative mood states, would uniquely (compared to other impulsivity traits: positive urgency, sensation seeking, premeditation, and perseverance) account for the relationship between MDD and marijuana use and problems.MethodsData were collected from a sample (N = 357) of veterans (M age = 33.63) recruited from a Veterans Affairs hospital who used marijuana at least once in their lifetime. Participants completed the SCID-NP to assess MDD, a marijuana problems scale, a Time-Line Follow-back to assess six-month marijuana use, and the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale for impulsivity.ResultsPath analysis was conducted using bootstrapped (k = 20,000) and bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to estimate mediation (indirect) effects, controlling for age, sex, and race. Analyses revealed a significant direct effect of MDD on NU and NU on marijuana problems. Regarding mediational analyses, there was a significant indirect effect of MDD on marijuana problems via NU. The direct effect of MDD on marijuana problems was reduced, but remained significant, suggesting partial mediation. No other impulsivity scales accounted for the relationship between MDD and marijuana problems. In predicting marijuana use, there were no significant indirect effects for any impulsivity traits, including NU, despite significant bivariate associations between use and NU and MDD.ConclusionsResults suggest that high levels of NU may partially explain associations between MDD and marijuana problems, but not marijuana use. No other facets of impulsivity accounted for the relationship between MDD and marijuana use or problems, underscoring the specificity of NU as a putative mechanism and the importance of assessing NU in treatment settings.

Negative mood as a mediator of the association between insomnia severity and marijuana problems in college students

“…Thus, it is possible that individuals with more severe insomnia were using marijuana to cope with the associated negative mood, and this coping motivation led to worse marijuana‐related problems. Second, given research suggesting associations between negative mood, negative urgency (tendency to engage in rash action due to negative affect) and marijuana problems (Gunn, Jackson, Borsari, & Metrik, ), it is possible that negative mood as a result of more severe insomnia may have predisposed individuals to act more impulsively, leading to more consequences related to their marijuana use. Finally, neuroimaging findings have linked both insomnia and marijuana use with reductions in prefrontal activity (Babson & Bonn‐Miller, ; Drummond, Smith, Orff, Chengazi, & Perlis, ), which has been shown to be associated with decreased top‐down control of the amygdala, disrupted mood regulation and persistence of negative affect (for a review see Palagini, Bastien, Marazziti, Ellis, & Riemann, ).…”

Self-control and problematic use of social networking sites: Examining distress tolerance as a mediator among Argentinian college students

“…To test study aims, and considering the cross-sectional nature of the data, we employed a path analysis to examine the atemporal mediation ( Winer et al, 2016 ) of DT in the associations between self-control variables (i.e., impulsivity-like traits, self-regulation, and emotion regulation strategies) and SNSs outcomes (i.e., time spent using SNSs and problematic use). Prior research suggested that including all five UPPS-P facets in one model might create a suppression effect because some dimensions are highly intercorrelated ( Gunn et al, 2018 , Gunn and Smith, 2010 ). Therefore, before deciding which UPPS-P dimensions to include in the mediation model, we estimated the bivariate Pearson correlations between each UPPS-P facet, DT (i.e., the mediator) and SNS outcomes.…”

Associations Among Functional and Dysfunctional Impulsivity: Direct and Indirect Effects on Sensation Seeking in Youth (19-25 Years Old)

“…Impulsivity is not a unitary construct (Adams et al, 2012;Maraz et al, 2016), but it is a multifaceted (Evren & Bozkurt, 2017;Maccalum et al, 2007;Netto et al, 2016), multidimensional (Adams et al, 2012;Maccalum et al, 2007;Magid et al, 2007;Ramakrishnan et al, 2019), complex (Magid et al, 2007), heterogeneous (Dick et al, 2010) construct. Impulsivity is characterized by rapid, unpredictable, unplanned, spontaneous, rashly and sudden reactions to stimuli (Adams et al, 2012;Chase et al, 2017;Dick et al, 2010;Maccalum et al, 2007;Pérez Fuentes et al, 2016;Ramakrishnan et al, 2019), rapid decision-making and action (Magid et al, 2007;Patton et al, 1995), before complete processing of information, without considering all the information available (Maccalum et al, 2007;Molero Jurado et al, 2020;Pérez Fuentes et al, 2016), without adequate forethought, deliberation, premeditation or planning (Adams et al, 2012;Charnigo et al, 2013;Chase et al, 2017;Daurio et al, 2018;Dick et al, 2010;Gunn et al, 2018;Harden & Tucker-Drob, 2011;Johansen, 2014;Lynam, n.d.;Maccalum et al, 2007;Magid et al, 2007;Merchán-Clavellino et al, 2020;Molero Jurado et al, 2020;Patton et al, 1995;Ramakrishnan et al, 2019;Reas et al, 2016;…”

“…the tendency to experience strong impulses and act rashly under conditions of negative mood states, and positive urgency, i.e. the tendency towards rash actions in response to positive mood (Adams et al, 2012;Chase et al, 2017;Daurio et al, 2018;Dick et al, 2010;Gunn et al, 2018;Lynam, n.d.;Ramakrishnan et al, 2019;Reas et al, 2016;Wan et al, 2020;Whiteside & Lynam, 2001;Zhao et al, 2017), decreased sensitivity to negative consequences of behavior and decreased sensitivity to punishment (Cross et al, 2011;Maccalum et al, 2007;Merchán-Clavellino et al, 2020), decreased sensitivity to non-reward (Wan et al, 2020), preference for and sensitivity to immediate smaller reward (Chase et al, 2017;Cheng, 2020;Cross et al, 2011;Maccalum et al, 2007;Merchán-Clavellino et al, 2020;Molero Jurado et al, 2020;Pérez Fuentes et al, 2016;Wan et al, 2020), deficits in self-control, a repeated failure of self-discipline and self-regulation (Cross et al, 2011;Maccalum et al, 2007;Ramakrishnan et al, 2019;Zuckerman, 2014), lack of perseverance (Adams et al, 2012;Chase et al, 2017;Daurio et al, 2018;Dick et al, 2010;Gunn et al, 2018;Lynam, n.d.;Merchán-Clavellino et al, 2020;Ramakrishnan et al, 2019;Reas et al, 2016;Wan et al, 2020;…”

“…Some authors differentiate impulsivity and sensation seeking, others include sensation seeking in the structure of impulsivity or impulsivity in the structure of sensation seeking. According to one viewpoint, sensation-seeking is a component of impulsivity (Adams et al, 2012;Daurio et al, 2018;Dick et al, 2010;Gunn et al, 2018;Merchán-Clavellino et al, 2020;O'Connor & Jackson, Psychological Thought 2021, Vol. 14 (1), 115-149 South-West University "Neofit Rilski" https://doi.org/10.37708/psyct.v14i1.551 Popov et al, 2016;Ramakrishnan et al, 2019;Wan et al, 2020;Whiteside & Lynam, 2001).…”